Adam Sandler Policy-Making
GovExec's Alyssa Rosenberg filed this item from Capitol Hill:
I was at a hearing today at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on whether or not the federal government should extend insurance and retirement benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees. A large portion of the debate centered around whether or not extending those benefits would increase incidences of fraud, encouraging employees to fake relationships to obtain benefits for friends or to not report when a relationship ended to keep their former partner insured or in line for retirement benefits.
That conversation got a little strange, though, when Office of Personnel Management Deputy Director Howard Weizmann made reference to I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, the 2007 Adam Sandler-Kevin James buddy flick in which the two men play New York City firefighters and best friends who pretend to be a gay couple so one of the men can keep his pension. The movie, Weizmann said, showed that fraud was a real possibility.
The thing about the movie, though, is that it's a terrible argument for trying to commit insurance fraud. Chuck and Larry get caught, after being subject to an extremely intrusive investigation of their relationship by a terrifyingly cheerful bureaucrat. Larry talks Chuck into the scheme in the first place because city pension law is screwed up: after his wife's death, he's not able to name his children his beneficiaries. In other words, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry works better as an indictment of overly rigid benefit laws than as a warning of mass criminal tendencies in the gay community.
But hey, maybe Weizmann has a point about Sandler movies and policy questions. As one of my friends put it, "Maybe we should call a hearing to determine if there is much Happy Gilmore-style violence occurring in professional golf."
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Rationale for allowing same-sex benefits: Mutual love for one another (I presume).
Taken to its logical conclusion:
If 5 men love one another, why cannot four of those men receive same sex benefits from the remaining partner who happens to work for the federal government?
Moral Dilemma:
Alex Hamilton Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:49 PMWhy should benefits be limited to one partner?
Why must benefits be linked to sexual love? Why can't an individual pick a relative or platonic friend to recieve the benefits? "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" works better as an indictment of overly rigid benefit laws than as a warning of mass criminal tendencies in the gay community for sure.
Phil Adelphia Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:06 PMBut if the government really has no business in anyone's bedroom why make the benefit contigent on a sexual relationship?
What a pathetic society we live in when we're actually talking about such a topic in a Senate hearing. There should be no such thing.
Sad Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:23 PMMoral Solution: everything in America should be free, that way no one ever has to pay for anything, let alone a God-given Constitutional right like health care.
Happy Fed Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:28 AMI dunno, Alex.
Tommy Jefferson Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:16 AMIs this a polygamy issue? Can a person of one sex cohabitate with a number of persons of the opposite sex and claim the same benefits? If the specific type of social contract is limited to a two partner venture, wouldn't there have to be a change in the basic contractual parameters to expand the benefit?
Is this where you're going - expanding the nature of the basic social contract?
The likely fraud will come more from unmarried heterosexuals attempting to obtain benefits for a friend, relative, girlfriend, etc.
If they do it, it has to apply to all employees regardless of sexual orientation. (Aren't rules based on sexual orientation illegal?)
fraud Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:18 AMSounds like the "P" in "OPM" stands for "phobic"
There's something wrong when government officials start citing movies or television as rationales for real-life policy decisions...Can you say "Murphy Brown"?
STILL Amazed by Our Leadership Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:27 AMMy friend is on disability (we live in California) I seriously thought of marrying her.
1. We are both heterosexual but how many sexless heterosexual marriages do you know? Lots right? So no difference there.
2. Cohabitating with others, same sex, opposite sex, still no difference, adultry happens all the time. I know folks in "open marriages".
Turns out the feds don't recognize same-sex marriage so this wouldn't work.
Interesting remark about relatives. Would the incest laws still apply to two people who physically cannot reproduce? I suspect that if a sister and brother who were past reproductive age wanted to marry, it would still be against the law so the laws about marrying First Cousins probably still apply.
Linda Robinett Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 10:50 AMTommy,
Why shoudn't we expand the social contract if that is what its takes to make people happy? Are you against the pursuit of happiness?
Phil Adelphia Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:10 PM